CA Upholds Secretary’s Discretion on Petitions
The Court of Appeals (CA) recently affirmed that the secretary of justice cannot be forced to resolve petitions for review within a fixed timeframe. This ruling underscores the secretary’s discretionary power when handling appeals on rulings from Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors.
In a decision issued on June 9, authored by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, the CA emphasized the absence of any mandatory deadline for the Secretary of Justice to act. “In a word, the consistent omission of a mandatory timeframe within which the Secretary of Justice must act on matters for his or her review affirms and reinforces the discretionary nature of this function,” the court explained.
The CA further explained that compelling the Secretary to act would interfere with the separation of powers, violating fundamental constitutional principles. This means the justice secretary holds full discretion on how and when to address petitions for review.
Background of the Yanson Group Dispute
The ruling came after the CA dismissed a petition filed by members of the Yanson family, known collectively as the Yanson Four, including Roy V. Yanson, Emily V. Yanson, Ma. Lourdes Celina Y. Lopez, and Ricardo V. Yanson. They, along with other heirs, are embroiled in a long-standing legal battle over control of the Yanson Group of Bus Companies (YGBC).
The petition sought to compel DOJ Secretary Jesus Crispin C. Remulla to resolve 23 pending petitions for review and motions of reconsideration. The Yanson Four claimed they are current corporate officers and directors of related bus companies and requested mandamus to enforce action on their cases.
CA Dismisses Petition for Mandamus
The CA, however, cited a Supreme Court ruling to highlight that the DOJ Secretary’s authority in determining probable cause during investigations is discretionary, not ministerial. This means the Secretary is not legally bound to resolve petitions within any fixed period.
“The Secretary of Justice is expressly granted the authority to decide how or when to exercise the duty to review resolutions issued by subordinates,” the CA stated. It also noted that the 2000 National Prosecution Service (NPS) Rule on Appeal and subsequent DOJ circulars do not specify any deadline for the Secretary’s action.
Legal Precedents on Discretionary Powers
While some government bodies like the Commission on Elections can be compelled to act within set periods, the DOJ’s rules do not impose such limits on the Secretary of Justice. Therefore, mandamus cannot be used to force resolution of pending cases.
The court concluded, “Neither the DOJ nor Secretary Remulla may be compelled by mandamus to act on the incidents pending for review, as they are not strictly bound by any clear legal duty under the DOJ’s procedural rules to resolve such incidents within a definite period.”
The petition from the Yanson heirs was thus dismissed. Associate Justices Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon and Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito concurred with the decision.
For more news and updates on petitions for review, visit Filipinokami.com.